Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

rubberbando writes "The new york times is running a story about how scientists have discovered a way to grow new blood vessels using skin cells. Since the blood vessels are grown using the patient's own skin cells, there isn't any chance for rejection. This looks to be quite a boon for people who have several damaged blood vessels from diseases such as diabetes. Perhaps one day they will be able to apply this technology/technique to creating other parts of the body and rid us of the whole stem cell controversy. Only time will tell."

DALLAS, Nov. 15 (AP) - Two kidney dialysis patients from Argentina have received the world's first blood vessels grown in a laboratory dish from snippets of their own skin, a technique that doctors hope will someday offer a new source of arteries and veins for diabetics and other patients.

Scientists from Cytograft Tissue Engineering Inc., a small biotechnology company in Novato, Calif., reported the tissue-engineering advance on

I doubt that it'll rid us of the controversy... because by the time that becomes possible, cloning or genetic modification of some other sort will also have also become possible, and that'll just pick up where the stem cell controversy left off, probably with many of the same arguments on both sides.

Then they don't get them, and die off earlier on average. The biggest problem comes in when you have sick kids in these people's custody. And that's being/been addressed in courts for a while anyways.As for plastic surgery, well, I consider those forms of surgery rather extreme for just appearance.

As for genetic mods, that's happening now, for years. Certain sufferers from genetic lung ailments have gotten viral genetic therapy. More or less permanent cure, though they've had a couple cases of cancer, s

We can't get rid of something that's projected onto the situation by people who are nervous/scared about what the bio-sciences say about their world view. The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics. That takes the mystery out of a lot things, and devalues mystical explanations (and those social institutions that rely upon them for clout).

Growing new body parts out of other body parts will still freak out a certain number of people, no matter what. If it's not the stem cell faux-controversy, it will be the "only rich people can afford this treatment, so it's evil" crowd or their various other counterparts.

The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics.

I disagree.

The worry many people have about using stem cells is that if this method skyrockets, there will be a higher demand for stem cells, which at the moment at least would necessitate a large commercial market for dead babies.

Which there are plenty of slowly expiring in vats of frozen nitrogen at fertility clinics around the world.

Hate to break it to you, but those people consider your blastocyst to be a living breathing baby. [...] Most of them don't mind harvesting 'stem cells' from any source that still results in a born baby (umbilical cords, for example).

Okay, I'm not saying you missed the point of the GP post -- I understand that you're just speaking for "those people". So would you mind answe

Okay, I'm not saying you missed the point of the GP post -- I understand that you're just speaking for "those people". So would you mind answering one more argument on behalf of "them"? It's something that I've never heard an embryonic-stem-cell opponent answer, and I'm dying to hear what "they" would say. Here it is (worded in second person):

Answer, on behalf of "those people", as best as I can manage, about why they can't use the extra embryoes genereated during In Vitro Fertilization(IVF):

"The worry many people have about using stem cells is that if this method skyrockets, there will be a higher demand for stem cells, which at the moment at least would necessitate a large commercial market for dead babies."

Any VC's out there who would like to get in on the opportunity of a lifetime? I'd love to show you my business plans, just sign this NDA and we can begin discussing your investment in my plan to leverage my biotech knowledge to realize substantial gains by cornering the market on dead

The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics. That takes the mystery out of a lot things, and devalues mystical explanations (and those social institutions that rely upon them for clout).

I can't speak for everyone, but I have a problem with using fetuses for stem cell research, and none whatsoever with this. Medical science can do wonderful things for people (I look forward to when they sythesize blood and eliminate shortages); I just don't want other people to be trampled on in the process.

As for taking the mystery out of things, I think it's just the opposite. The more you understand the universe, the more wonderful it seems. I don't see how knowing the mechanics of cells creates an argument for atheism, as you seem to imply.

I'm glad you make the general distinction between the discussed procedure and other methods. But I hope you can also make the distinction between a collection of dividing cells in a dish and a human being. I'll stop here, because we might as well just play a recording.

Out of curiosity... If you're an athiest, and thus do not believe in a soul. What are you but for a collection of dividing cells? Is the only difference between you and a blastocycst the dish?

I challenge you to give a definition of when something starts to be 'human' that isn't completely arbitrary

It can be very hard to look at a complex organism and say, "that's human, or is about to be," but it's not hard at all to say what is not. A collection of cells that has no functioning higher nervous system is not human. A collection of cells that has no interconnected, differentiated neural tissue at all is absolutely not human (yet). Zygotes, blastocysts, etc., while eventually capable of developing into an embryo and a fetus, are not humans, and have no platform upon which - at that point - to hang "human-ness."

I realize that's more a description of what is not yet human, rather than an answer to your "when is it human" question. I don't need to sweat pinning down that moment, because I know that a dozen dividing cells are way, way on the non-human side of that transition, regardless of when I would identify it in a given fetus.

A collection of cells that has no functioning higher nervous system is not human.

Even if that collection of cells has human DNA? If you were to take a genetic sample from a zygote and a grown person, could you tell in the lab which was which? What if the genetic info says "I'm human" even if it only looks like a bunch of cells?

It seems a little inconsistent to me, claiming to be a progressive beleiver in the scientific theory and then using the "it doesn't look like me, so its not a person arguement"

But, my fingernail clippings also have human DNA. A lot of things have to line up right for human DNA to give you an actual human.

the "it doesn't look like me, so its not a person arguement"

A collection of dividing stem cells in a petri dish, salvaged from an IVF procedure rather than simply being discarded, is sitting there under a microscope. You're looking at them. There are 12 cells. Under absolutely no circumstances outside of substantial human in

Your fingernail clippings aren't an organism. That's the issue at stake. If you have a collection of human cells that functions as an organism, then the burden of proof is on you to show that this organism somehow has a different status from you.

As it turns out, an embryo *does* qualify as an organism. Check out "lifeform" on the Wiki, for starters.

You'll forgive me if I don't find that whoever last posted a their opinion on Wikipedia (and hasn't yet been overwritten by someone else) doesn't have what I'd call any real authority on anything. I could go there right now and change the definition of "lifeform" to be "Anything that's not made of Playdough."

Never the less, a blastocyst (feel free to look that one up on Wikipedia - hopefully it doesn't currently read, "a type of peanut butter sandwich," though it might) sitting in a petri dish isn't goin

Only so long as that human in the blastocyst stage of development is frozen!

Or not, through the technical work of highly skilled bio-science folks, with expensive equipment and facilities, handled in a very particular way. Frozen, not-frozen - really doesn't matter, because at that moment, only the positive action of the scientists/doctors involved (and of course, a ready and waiting woman with a health uterous and lots of other conditions being just so) will make that anything beyond the group of cells

I'm using "she" as it is properly used - as a pronoun (as opposed to "it" or "they" since we're referring to a dozen cells in a dish). Of course the assembled DNA is the blueprint for a male or a female. But there's no "she" there, in that there's no anyone there yet.

Are you implying that the attaching is done by some third party?

No, I'm making the distinction between the nature of the interaction between the blastocyst and the uteri

I'm really not sure why you're going to such lengths to pretend that we're not talking about cells in a dish. IVF leftovers cannot proceed past whatever state they're in without technical intervention. They can't leap out of the dish and find a womb, they can't flip the switch on an incubator, etc. In most cases, they're simply going to be discarded, regardless. You can impact their fate by throwing them away, by putting them in a freezer indefinitely, or by putting them to good use in some way (say, as par

You believe that a blastocyst in a dish is less human than a blastocyst in a womb.

Not at all. A blastocyst is a blastocyst regardless of where it is. A blastocyst embedded in the womb has a chance of developing into an embryo which has a chance - with enough differntiation and sophistication - at becoming a human fetus. A blastocyst in a dish so far (since we don't have effective artificial wombs) requires implantation so that it can develop, eventually, just like its more naturally fertalized counterpar

A "collection of cells" that all of humanity that exists now or has ever existed was once? What praytell is it, if it is not human, a magical womb spirit? Oh wait, it is considered human by any embryologist in the world you are just trying to dehumanize it. We need a nice latin phrase for when people dehumanize something to win an argument. Any Jesuits around?

A "collection of cells" that all of humanity that exists now or has ever existed was once? What praytell is it, if it is not human, a magical womb spirit? Oh wait, it is considered human by any embryologist in the world you are just trying to dehumanize it.

Not only is it just a collection of cells, it's really just a collection of various elements doing a tiny electical dance. You know, heavier elements that were formed deep in stars through fusion. Really, just a rattling collection of subatomic particl

You suggest that my referring to a blastocyst as the collection of cells that it is, is somehow "dehumanizing." I find that complaint to be a hollow one, and your inability to recognize a casually lyrical reference to the nature of chemistry to be in indication of your less-than-well-roundedness.

The entire point of this thread is to refute the notion that moving away from the use of embryonic stem cells (say, those that are salvaged from about-to-be-destroyed IVF leftovers) will somehow make the stem cel

This may seem cold and crass, but think of life as a table. When does the table become a table? When the last coat of lacquer goes on the wood? When the carpenter decides to cut a tree down to carve the table out of? When he actually cuts the tree down? Somewhere inbetween?

We collectively have decided that it's when it's flat enough to put stuff on and not have it fall off. But the artist, might say that it became a table with the inspiration, and the rest was inevitable process. The purchaser might say that it's not a table until it is set up in his dining room. The carpenter might say that it was always a table, and he just removed it from its protective coating.

I think that a table is a table when it has a flat top, and can fufill its designed function. But I respect the carpenter's idea that it was always a table, and the purchaser's idea that it's not really a table until it is actually functioning as a table. I don't really listen to the artist, they're all pseudo batshit-crazy, but I nod and smile so as to get out of there without having to hear how the light reflects of the natural grains of the oak or some shit like that.

Changing any one of the actors ideas of what a table is, is a monumental task, and may never be done.

I think that a table is a table when it has a flat top, and can fufill its designed function. But I respect the carpenter's idea that it was always a table, and the purchaser's idea that it's not really a table until it is actually functioning as a table.

Rather, one should respect their right to hold a belief or have an idea. That doesn't mean I respect their idea. Especially if it's something like "An acorn is a table".

ScentCone's answer had this right - perhaps we can't draw a magic line where we suddenly

There's a good reason for that. Any object can undergo a process of creation, as you clearly elucidate. However, some processes take longer than others, and have clearer boundaries than others.

In the case of an embryo, there is a definite moment, spanning a few minutes, in which sperm and egg unite and become an organism. A genetically human, genetically distinct organism. At that point, from the legal standpoint that existed until Roe, all human

Embryos, not fetuses.
*rolls eyes* They're the same thing, a unborn child. I think there's a technical description where embryo is used from conception to 8 months and fetus is used for 8 weeks in to birth, but for all practical purposes, it's all the same. It's all a child who hasn't been born yet.

Or have you not educated yourself on this matter before reaching your hasty conclusion?

Yes, I used the wrong term. My mistake.

Some believe that sickness is caused by evil spirits, and so doctors should be replaced with exorcists. Do you propose we make exceptions for every religious objection, just to make sure that these people aren't "trampled on" in some real or imaginary way?

I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion here - those are usually flamewars, and we're pretty far offtopic now.

These are your words: "I just don't want other people to be trampled on in the process."

I interpreted "other people" as people who oppose stem cell research, and I supposed that you were taking the position that we shouldn't do any research without the permission of everyone. Hence my reference to the admittedly extreme instances of opposition to medical science.

What I was trying to get at with my post was related to the topic of the thread. New techniques will not end the controversies of medical sci

I doubt that anyone else is reading this anymore, but I know you'll see that I replied to you.

Based on your reply, I now suspect that "other people" most likely refers to the embryos in which stem cells originate. I apologize for responding to the wrong argument, but invite you to consider that many people who oppose embryonic stem cell research have greater qualms than the destruction of embryos.

Yes, that's who I was referring to; sorry if that was unclear. I'm glad we have come to a better understa

You fail to take into account what is euphemistically known as "therepeutic cloning". This is where scientists clone human embryos specifically to destroy them and harvest their stem cells. This is not generally done, but it has been proposed, and the only thing that keeps it from happening is this type of debate.

I have no problem with using dead embryos for research, any more than I do for using cadavers for research. I don't believe abortion in most cases is ethical, but regardless, I don't believe ther

This hasn't been projected to those who are nervous nor scared. Those types of people have been spoon fed crapaganda about stem cell by what you labeled "rich people". Its those same rich people often in positions of power that have the right to shoot it down. I'm sure if they took a different stance, they could get those nervous and scared people on board with the program but, you will rarely see that happen as most of the powers that be tend to sway the way of what's popular at the moment. "Oh you will vo

It's not totally artificial like that. John G. Bloke has to play off a latent fear that is already present in the masses. No matter how much Bloke distorts the truth, [deviant]phobia, xenophobic us and them, the rules don't apply to us because we're on a mission, and 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' are the 4 horses of the groupthink.

They are general enough that you can tailor the specifics to any sizable population group.

The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics.

Oh please... The debate over Stem cells has nothing to do with scientific understanding of cellular mechanics. If that were the case, Watson and Crick would have been burned at the stake decades ago. No other research involving cellular mechanics has reached this level of public scrutiny. I've never heard anyone debate the ethics of cell-surface recognition proteins or origins of the mitochondria in cells. Let's be honest. The whole stem-cell debate is merely a veiled front for the larger fight over abortion. (I use the word fight because "debate" hardly fits.)

Here's how it happened:

The most interesting and scientifically-valuable stem cells are found in developing embryos.

Studying these cells requires the destruction of the embryo.

This raises the ugly question: if destroying an embryo for research is okay, what makes an abortion any different?

Fight ensues. Everybody all the sudden becomes an expert on cellular biology.

That takes the mystery out of a lot things, and devalues mystical explanations (and those social institutions that rely upon them for clout).

Bullshit. "Social instiutions that rely on mystical explanations"? Do you mean "religions"? Why don't you just say it?...Religions... See how easy that was?

Regardless, science doesn't debunk the larger, more important claims of religion. It can't. Learning about cellular theory doesn't debunk the existence of God. Learning physics doesn't mean that God couldn't temporarily violate the laws of physics at a whim--you know, being omnipotent and all.

Religion and God are meta-physical concepts, while science is the study of the physical world. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas. A scientist can just as easily believe in a religion as an atheist in science.

Let's be honest. The whole stem-cell debate is merely a veiled front for the larger fight over abortion.

I would contend that the more we know (and can demonstrate) about what's cooking, and when, in the development of a zygote, blastocyst, etc., the more we deflate some of the fuss about the abortion issue in the first place. It's important, I think, to make sure that those who assign humanity to, say, 16 cells (or to a dividing line of them derived therefrom) really have to come out and admit that it's

Note that even without the fight over abortion there still is a stem cell controversy - in Germany we can't do any stem cell research, even though abortions are perfectly acceptable. Over here the debate indeed is about "oh noes, we can't tell if it's human".

Religion and God are meta-physical concepts, while science is the study of the physical world. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas. A scientist can just as easily believe in a religion as an atheist in science.

But can a contemporary evangelical Christian respect science as easily as an agnostic? Can someone who places an enormous value on the literal veracity of various myths really accept that some of those myths are false and the rest are untestable? The answer is being played out across the count

Anesthesia for women during childbirth was controversial. Organ transplantation was controversial. IVF was far more controversial when it was first developed than it is today. Today's affront against God is tomorrow's bygone advance in science. Reason wins in the long run because it works.

Torturing humans for scientific research was controversial. Testing products on people was controversial. Using jews to test crash helmets was controversial. Yesterdays scientific advancement is todays human rights violatoin. Morality wins in the long run because it's right.

There's a pretty obvious difference between objecting to things which actually harm people, and objecting to things which help people for reasons unrelated to the well-being of people. I would be so bold as to say that an misanthropic system of morality is objectively wrong, since the purpose of morality is to guide our decisions in a beneficial way.

The parent post is a thinly-veiled anti-religion troll, not insightful.

No, my post was a specific response to samzenpus's posting of rubberbando's summary, which offered some conjecture about the breakthrough in question perhaps getting rid of the stem cell controversy. Absent a discussion of the religious posture (of attributing humanity to a couple of dozen cells), there would be no controversy.

If a method for procuring stem cells could be found that didn't require the deaths of fetuses, I'd be fine

Jehova's Witnesses view blood as sacred. They will not allow it to be used in medicine. It doesn't matter whose blood it is. It isn't the fact that it's someone else's blood, it's the fact that it's blood. (Just the same, they don't donate blood.)I don't know if this would be permissible or not. I understand what's been done here is that blood vessels have been created. Blood vessels aren't blood, so it might be permissible. But, I'm not a Jehova's Witness, and I haven't read the article, so this is just hy

IANAJW (I am not a Jehovah's Witness), but I suspect that they would be OK with it. My understanding of their belief is that blood contains part of a person's soul and that by accepting blood (or blood products) from another person, it makes your blood a combination of the 2 people. Then on judgement day it would be impossible to sort out who the righteous person is/was. At least that was how someone explained it to me once. My apologies to any Witnesses out there if I've mangled their beliefs and I'd also

As long as people like PETA think that owning a pet is evil, that issue won't go away. But at least it's nice to know that nobody at PETA will ever swat an innocent mosquito while it's sucking the blood out of their foreheads.

I don't think that any tissue science development - no matter how good a fake-steak it produces - will change the nature of political debate about domesticated animals. And it probably won't come close to the taste of a plate of fresh,

Certainly should taste as good as the bad end of the real thing -- can't imagine synthe-chicken tasting worse than intensively-reared, factory farmed meat.

I really can't see it competing with organic free range, or better yet, wild-caught meat; but if it means we can keep on fattening the proles on cheap meat while reducing animal cruelty, that's got to be a good thing.

Personally I would love it if protein synthesis became plausible in my lifetime. First you'd sell these factories to third world countries where defending a corporate asset is a lot easier than defending farmland. Instantly curing world hunger. Then you'd see 100% synthesised meat alternatives appearing in vegetarian food outlets - there's already some of this, Quorn [quorn.co.uk] being the most famous, but their manufacturing methods are too expensive to have an effect on the mainstream. Then we'll see synthesised meat appearing in shopping centre refrigeration cabinets. When you have the choice between $21.99/kg steak vs $1.99/kg synthesised meat you'll at least give it a go. From there, the future is our playground. We can shut down factory farms. We can reclaim land for foresting. We can build self sufficient space habitates without needing to launch millions of tonnes of topsoil for crops.

Except for the fact that food production has been high enough to "cure world hunger" for decades. It is NOT a production problem, but a distribution problem (aka a problem of poor people not being able to pay for the food).

That problem will increase not decrease with what you are suggesting, as it will remove the livelyhood of millions of farmers in the third world that currently depend on being able to compete with larger scale farming or industrial food manufacture.

Want to solve world hunger in one "easy" step?

Drop agricultural subsidies in all developed countries and spend the money on providing farming tools and infrastructure in the developing countries instead, while gradually removing all trade barriers on exports from third world countries without forcing them to go first.

Yes, you'd have a rebellion of farmers on your hand, pissed off that they're suddenly having to deal with actual competition instead of being sheltered in every way possible. And yes, a lot of them would face going bankrupt. And yes, food prices would rise at least temporarily...

Which is why little ends up actually being done to stop world hunger - whichever way you look at it, it requires the third world to have more control over their own food supply, and the only way that will happen is to make it more profitable to farm there so that local farmers can afford to take precautions against droughts etc. (including building up grain caches etc.) - the volatility of food local food production is the main cause of hunger and famines today.

All of this WILL force farmers in the developed countries to have to make significant adjustments, and at the moment they're simply too powerful for any politicians to dare push that kind of agenda very hard.

Any distribution problem can be solved by producing a product closer to the consumer. That is, if you don't have the issue of labour costs, which you don't, in a fully automated factory. The point is, curing world hunger is not something you can set out to do. It has to be a side effect of competing in local markets. If you can't make synthetic food for cheaper than traditional farming then it's nothing more than a boondoggle.

If you're looking for other meat substitutes, I have this product you might be interested in: It's called Soylent Green [imdb.com]. Yeah, the marketing department needs to work on a better name, but hey, it contains everything a growing body needs.;)

The summary refers to conditions where vessels have been severely compromised, but I wonder if it can go even further. Vascular deterioration, and its role in overall CV ill-health is both part and parcel of modern America, and also contributes to the severity of other conditions. Having some way of replacing damaged vessels that is easier than current methods could find applications across the board.

The article doesn't give much detail, but I would think that generation of blood vessels that won't be rej

The problem is that the vessels (and various CT) are grown ex utero and not on the capillary scale. They are no easier to transplant than donated or synthetic vessels... the only difference is the risk of rejection being close to zero.

Also, not eating junk won't help you if you're on dialysis... you're still getting poked with a needle at least weekly, which is the cause of the degradation.

With athletes always looking for a competitive edge, what could this kind of technology do to professional sports? It seems to me, if you can increase the blood flow to your vital muscles (sport dependent), then you would gain an enormous advantage over your opponents.

Will this be the next big sports controversy? And what could be done about it, if it doesn't use drugs, and is grown from the patient itself?

I think that's unlikely. Increased blood flow to improve athletic performance would be needed at a capillary (very small arteries) level and these are MUCH larger diameter arteries. The most likely uses are for dialysis fistulas and as conduits for bypassing diseased arteries (e.g., femoral-popliteal arterial bypass, coronary artery bypass graft).

Just the other day in my cancer seminar (biomedical engineering department at UC Irvine), we were discussing angiogenesis, which ordinarily occurs when tumors have an imbalance between angiogenic growth factors and inhibitors. (Usually arises when tumors become too large to receive their nutrients soley from diffusion through the tissues.) The resulting gradient in these chemical signals recruits endotheial cells (the cells that ordinarily form the walls of blood vessels) to move chemotactically towards the tumor, align themselves, and form a new blood vessel to supply nutrients to the previously hypoxic tumor.

But in some tumors, the tumor cells themselves align and form blood vessels, with no need for endotheial cells. Much like forming blood vessels from skin cells.

The human body is truly an amazing machine. The fascinating part about cancer is that you get to see many of the mechanisms at play, and what happens when they're out of balance. -- Paul

gradient: in this context, a variation with a pronounced direction of increase

chemotaxis: chemo = chemicals, taxis = motion or moving, so chemotaxis is the (active) motion of something in response to chemoicals. usually involves a cell or organism moving from areas of a high chemical concentration to an area of low chemical concentration, or vice versa. adverb form: chemotactically

hypoxic: hypo = too little, oxic = oxygen, so hypoxic means being in a condition of having too little oxygen

Given the generally science-educated readership, I didn't give it earlier, although I perhaps should have. I used the terms because they have specific meanings, and the interesting aspect (one of balance) wouldn't have been as well conveyed without them. I'll grant that I could have done a better job writing my post, but it's only slashdot.;-)

The thing that's interesting about all these chemical signals is that it's the precise balance of them that leads to the proper formation or blood vessels when called for. When the chemicals are out of balance, strange things happen, like blood vessels growing towards tumors. Another interesting aspect is that the balance of promoters and inhibitors for tumors is different than in the usual formation of blood vessels. This inbalance actually causes the blood vessels to be "leaky" and less rigid. The implications of this are too numerous to go into here, but chemotherapy is one thing that is (adversely) affected.

These balance issues are present in almost all aspects of how the body regulates itself. Cells are replete with redundant signaling pathways (different chains of events that can trigger a cell activity). Sometimes, multiple, contradictory pathways will be active at the same time, and the balance or imbalance will determine the net result. In another example, the balance and distribution of chemicals, hormones, nutrients determines whether a growing tooth becomes a molar or an incisor. (There was a Scientific American article on this a few months ago, in the context of growing tissues and organs from stem cells.) Again, the issue of balance. Fascinating stuff!:) -- Paul

Amazing. I've been advocating slashdot as a source of actual information for at least 8 years; I've come close to first post a few times. This time I thought I'd done it, and with what a post, the death notice of my sister, a brilliant young researcher in brain chemistry, one who treated Montel Williams. What a let down to read stupid jokes. Can't we all over this planet raise the level of discourse? My last words to her were that I wouuld not give the benefit of my brain to them. I am a physicist.

I'm sorry to disappoint a lot of diabetics. But the major problem in diabetes is the micro vascular damage. One cannot grow and transplant 10.000 micro vessels in a foot that is about to fall of.The major gain is in the larger vessels, where no venous graft is available/possible. Now one needs a Gore-Tex graft, but they fail (close) too often too soon.

It will be a long time before i trust this technique to replace my future abdominal aneurysm. The forces there are the true challenge.

So how long is it before we can grow entire humans? I mean a blood vessel is a relatively simple thing (compared to, say, a brain), but if you can grow a blood vessel, why not an entire human eventually?

If you think a medical alternative to stemcells that still produces "miracle cures" will not be controversial, you don't understand the "controversy", or the contras who oppose stemcell research. Those contras are the core of the Republican marriage made in hell: fundamentalists and corporations. The corporations are the pharmacos, which anticipate profits from drugs which assist the stemcell research and therapies. But stemcell patients already show a faster, more complete recovery than from traditional su

I'm actually considering abandoning computer architecture (what I currently study in grad school) and heading into neuroscience, because I find that research so much more enlightening, practical, and useful. Well I have many more reasons, some of which are deeper than others, but if I could spend my life studying ways to ameliorate neurodegenrative diseases like Parkinsons, I'd find a whole lot more meaning in that then spending years and years to make a processor thats just 2% faster on only certain types

You know what I'd personally enjoy? Structural modifications of the not so visible kind. How cool would it be to have your major arteries "reinforced" with some sort of external metallic mesh? No more going for the jugular!

Why stop at reinforcing major arteries. We could try to reinforce the entire body then have the perfect killing machine. One were bullets bounce off or disperse the energy from the shot and thereby making gun violence almost a thing of the past. Cops or soldiers could wear light armor and thugs mugging you at gunpoint might be as usless as them asking for handouts.This could go further. How about adapting this reinforcing major arteries into somethign specific for hazardous jobs. You could grow more and str

Well let's see....I've personally helped poor people get food and clothing, been an ongoing advocate for Linux and Open Source and their spread (which is helpful, even if you might not think so), been an advocate for a more free society and even been somewhat active in politics to that goal, and I've voted (hey, that alone is more than most people do...).

What they did was isolate endothelial progenitor cells from a patient and then let those grow to create a new vessel. Thus all the cells in the vessel were grown from a population of cells in the donor and are as much the patient's own cells as any other. I don't think the distinction that you make about being GROWN from the patient's cells as opposed to being the patient's own [cells] is important.

Also, could you elaborate about what you mean that rejection is a possibility with someone's own cells (ofte